better Mitt than Rudy, Huck or Paul but why go for the 2nd best when you can have the real thing?
Posted on 11/17/2007 6:27:48 PM PST by Nathan_Hale76
While I can appreciate people not agreeing with Mormonism. Mitt Boy’s problems are not so much related to his religious beliefs, as they are with his politics. His penchant for political expediency to gain advantage, shows a waffler of the first order.
Mitt Boy`s main problems are with his career record supporting Roe v Wade, abortion rights, gays rights, gun control, nationalized health care and weakness on immigration reform. Romney is not a conservative. Romney is a phony and a fraud.
Whether or not I choose Mit over Fred or Duncan will ultimately be decided by who has the best chance of winning. He’s not my first choice, but he is by no means totally unacceptable.
I am not so stupid as to cut off my nose to spite my face as Republicans did in the last election, petulantly refusing to vote and handing congress to the Democrats.
However, the one thing that will NOT be an issue is his Mormonism.
In my experience, most Mormons are hard-working, frugal, patriotic and by-and-large conservative.
Whoever pulled this one out of the hat did himself no favors.
While I agree , there is a risk that he is about to overplay the victim card to the point that it will start to wear negatively on people.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the Dims are behind the smear though .
And the dems are using one of their 527s — that would be my thought.
And while too many Conservatives are wrestleing with doubts; am guessing, that most of the 'hate dabate' re the 'Mormon', is and will be incited, by Hillary's 'Left'. . .
Well said..
The REAL Story of Thanksgiving...
Dead White Guys - Or - What Your History Books Never Told You
November 23, 2005
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: From my second bestseller, “See, I Told You So, “”Chapter 6, “Dead White guys, or What the History Books Never Told You: The True Story of Thanksgiving.” The story of the Pilgrims begins in the early part of the seventeenth century (that’s the 1600s for those of you in Rio Linda, California). The Church of England under King James I was persecuting anyone and everyone who did not recognize its absolute civil and spiritual authority. Those who challenged ecclesiastical authority and those who believed strongly in freedom of worship were hunted down, imprisoned, and sometimes executed for their beliefs.
A group of separatists first fled to Holland and established a community. After eleven years, about forty of them agreed to make a perilous journey to the New World, where they would certainly face hardships, but could live and worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences.
On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail. It carried a total of 102 passengers, including forty Pilgrims led by William Bradford. On the journey, Bradford set up an agreement, a contract, that established just and equal laws for all members of the new community, irrespective of their religious beliefs. Where did the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact come from? From the Bible.
The Pilgrims were a people completely steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments. They looked to the ancient Israelites for their example. And, because of the biblical precedents set forth in Scripture, they never doubted that their experiment would work.
But this was no pleasure cruise, friends. The journey to the New World was a long and arduous one. And when the Pilgrims landed in New England in November, they found, according to Bradford’s detailed journal, a cold, barren, desolate wilderness. There were no friends to greet them, he wrote. There were no houses to shelter them. There were no inns where they could refresh themselves.
And the sacrifice they had made for freedom was just beginning. During the first winter, half the Pilgrims – including Bradford’s own wife – died of either starvation, sickness or exposure. When spring finally came, Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish for cod and skin beavers for coats. Life improved for the Pilgrims, but they did not yet prosper!
This is important to understand because this is where modern American history lessons often end. Thanksgiving is actually explained in some textbooks as a holiday for which the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians for saving their lives, rather than as a devout expression of gratitude grounded in the tradition of both the Old and New Testaments.
Here is the part that has been omitted: The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belong to the community as well.
They were going to distribute it equally. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well. Nobody owned anything. They just had a share in it. It was a commune, folks. It was the forerunner to the communes we saw in the ‘60s and ‘70s out in California – and it was complete with organic vegetables, by the way.
Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives. He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace.
That’s right. Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened? It didn’t work! Surprise, surprise, huh? What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation!
But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years – trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it – the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently. What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild’s history lesson If it were, we might prevent much needless suffering in the future.
“The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God,” Bradford wrote. “For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense...that was thought injustice.”
Why should you work for other people when you can’t work for yourself? What’s the point?
Do you hear what he was saying, ladies and gentlemen? The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford’s community try next? They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the undergirding capitalistic principle of private property. Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products. And what was the result?
“This had very good success,” wrote Bradford, “for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.” Bradford doesn’t sound like much of a Clintonite, does he? Is it possible that supply-side economics could have existed before the 1980s? Yes. Read the story of Joseph and Pharaoh in Genesis 41. Following Joseph’s suggestion (Gen 41:34), Pharaoh reduced the tax on Egyptians to 20% during the “seven years of plenty” and the “Earth brought forth in heaps.” (Gen. 41:47)
In no time, the Pilgrims found they had more food than they could eat themselves.
Now, this is where it gets really good, folks, if you’re laboring under the misconception that I was, as I was taught in school.
So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. And the success and prosperity of the Plymouth settlement attracted more Europeans and began what came to be known as the “Great Puritan Migration.” Now, you probably haven’t read this. You might have heard me read it to you over the previous years on this program, but I don’t think this lesson is still being taught to children — and if not, why not? I mean, is there a more important lesson one could derive from the Pilgrim experience than this? Thanksgiving, in other words, is not thanks to the Indians, and it’s not thanks to William Bradford. It’s not thanks to the merchants of London. Thanksgiving is thanks to God, pure and simple. Go read the first Thanksgiving proclamation from George Washington and you’ll get the point. The word “God” is mentioned in that first Thanksgiving proclamation more times... If you read it aloud to an ACLU member, you’ll get thrown in jail, but that’s what the first Thanksgiving was all about. Get it. I’m telling you, read it. Maybe we can find it and link to it: George Washington’s first Thanksgiving Proclamation. Folks, if you haven’t read that, you need to read it. It will tell you the true story of Thanksgiving. I’m happy to share it with you each and every year as a tradition on this program.
END TRANSCRIPT — LEARN IT, LOVE IT, LIVE IT!
I wonder how "unAmerican" Romney perceives the LDS stance on Catholicism to be? Come on Mitt, go against your church to prove what an "American" you are, lol.
I was going to post this on Thanksgiving Day, but I see a refresher course is needed.
Exactly. While I don’t like McPain , I think he is an honest man and would not condone this .
This smear worked quite well and has the markings of a true Dim Prop-Op , but Romney will be the ultimate beneficiary if he doesn’t overplay it , which he is doing .
“Mr. Romney’s is right,but this country was’nt founded on religious freedom.Though that’s a different thread..”
Why did the Pilgrims come here? For affordable real estate?
This about the Pilgrims:
“Their leadership came from a religious congregation who had fled a volatile political environment in the East Midlands of England for the relative calm of the Netherlands TO PRESERVE THEIR RELIGION.”
Religious freedom was a key component of the founding of this country. And Romney is right.
Ask an American Indian what happens when you don’t control immigration.
How free would a religion be, if pointing out apostasy and false doctrine were forbidden? Not free at all.
Perfect quote!
Why are you asking me that?
Ask an American Indian if you should be making your gluteus maximus comfortable on his land...
OK,,do’nt have a hissy..Another thread..
I don't think Romney's saying that discussing denominational differences should be forbidden, but that doing so in an underhanded and deceptive way is not wholesome public discourse.
For example, an artist has a right and the freedom to stick a cross in a test-tube of urine and hang it on a wall and America protects that right, but that doesn't mean that is wholesome art.
Liberals love to say that acting in the most malicious and irresponsible way within their freedoms is the most moral exercise of freedom...don't fall into that trap.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.